Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 12, 2020.

6135-99-117-3143[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is some evidence that this code is related to AAA batteries, but it's not mentioned at the target and has no usage history. I think that it's unlikely as a search term and thus should be deleted unless a proper justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 22:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per unlikely search term. Utopes (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – The "Other common names" section has been removed from the target, so I agree with the nominator. jaclar0529 (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This reminds me of the use(ful/less)ness of the YouTube video database call redirects. --Doug Mehus T·C 17:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a NATO Stock Number, something for which no redirects are needed and the average reader will most likely not search. I also believe the line of reasoning in the discussion for YouTube IDs is applicable in this case. ComplexRational (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

U16 battery[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, I would suggest deletion unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 22:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – The "Other common names" section has been removed from the target, so I agree with the nominator. jaclar0529 (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Doug Mehus T·C 20:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Twins South[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects don't appear to unambiguously refer to the Hong Kong mountains. For instance, there's South Twin Peak, and likely others as well. I think that deletion per WP:XY may be most appropriate here. signed, Rosguill talk 22:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nomination is sound. I see no problem with re-creating these boldly when one or more suitable targets emerge. In the meantime, just as redirects are cheap to keep, so too are they cheap and easy to delete (and re-create, as necessary). --Doug Mehus T·C 20:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Hill of black magic[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This name is not applied to the target within the target article. Hog Farm (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

International language of love[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 19:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the article that French is the "International language of love". Also not a plausible search term for people searching for information about the french language. I'm not saying that French isn't called the language of love, but that this title is not useful for getting there, and could potentially be a WP:SURPRISE. Utopes (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This phrase is not mentioned at the target, and might be ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep several websites use the phrase "[international] language of love" to refer the French language.[1][2]. Also, redirects like this are cheap N harmless. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 09:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are costly, WP:RCOSTLY, Q. E. D.. Four editors now have taken their valuable time to do discuss it. WP:RCHEAP means readirects technically are cheap, do not worry about some poor server in Oshkoshbygosh having to empty its bitbucket. Redirects are costly if they send readers on false scent, or anywhere else they want to go.
Now who says that French is the International Language of Love? Do we have good sources? My trusty French-English dictionary does not list it. You have given two references to websites that, the first is a language learning sitewhich is {{subscription required}}, the second is a company "daytanslations.com" that translates stuff. I can also translate stuff, I speak two languages every day, and quite frequently I translate articles from WP:PNT. But they still must qualify for WP:RS and so on, end EN:WP's standards are higher than some others'. Even so, it still does not entitle me to add my own thoughts or desires into the translation. Either this is RS or not. I think it is not. Yes, redirects do not have to be RS, but quoting from language and translation sites is queering your pitch. 178.164.248.220 (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 178.164.248.220 above, referencing the WP:RCOSTLY essay, which I hadn't yet known about or read. I've skimmed it, but looks like a good read. Also nom's rationale is sound. Doug Mehus T·C 17:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Graph edit operation[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Graph operations#Graph edit operation. There is consensus to retargeting here, both from the nom and BenKuykendall. The difference is target is minor—so if Graph edit distance is preferred, this can be done outside of RfD boldly. I've added an embedded anchor to the target proposed by BenKuykendall. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 18:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit WP:XY. The article "Graph operations" does not mention edit operations, but does describe and link to Graph edit distance. I think this is better retargeted there. 94.21.10.204 (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about retarget to section specifically Graph operations#Elementary operations? It currently reads elementary operations or editing operations create a new graph from one initial one by... (emphasis mine) and then links to Graph edit distance in the next sentence. We could even change the copy to elementary operations or graph editing operations. BenKuykendall (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Last friday[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another redirect with improper capitalization, has about 2 pageviews per day. CycloneYoris talk! 06:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous. I see multiple, if not current, potentially future targets here. I don't see how this is helpful, and I don't have a crystal ball here. Could possibly disambiguate in the future, if and when multiple targets emerge. Doug Mehus T·C 20:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Doug, but the original delete justification probably wasn't the worth of sending to RfD even if it's also technically valid. signed, Rosguill talk 20:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

HDMI_1.3a_Specifications[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to HDMI#Version 1.3. signed, Rosguill talk 19:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this because this redirects to a mostly unrelated article's broken achor. It is also not helpful to create a redirect for every HDMI specification. Chris81w (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bilbo Baggins[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. No justification has been found as to why this needs to exist, with no history merged or anything. Probably is indeed a valid G8 speedy anyway. ~ mazca talk 16:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. We don't have to have redirects from Wikipedia talk pages to the articlespace. Hog Farm (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Remnant of an AfC draft, which duplicated an existing article; no content appears to have been merged from here. – Uanfala (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as WP:CSD#G8. --Doug Mehus T·C 14:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Kevin Hale[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication why this redirect targets this article, and if it's not notable enough for a mention I suggest delete to avoid a confusion with Kevin Hales. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Hale was a character in Between (TV series) [3] and was the only 'Kevin Hale' mentioned on Wikipedia, so I redirected it. However, the list of characters has now been pruned at the Between article and he's no longer listed, so the redirect is not currently helpful. Boleyn (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Corky Boozé[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was recently created following the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corky Boozé with consensus to delete. The only relevant content in the target article is a single sentence acknowledging that Boozé was elected to one term on the council, and since he's not a notable individual that is all that the article should say. A redirect is both needless, and potentially harmful, since it might lead to recreation of the deleted article in either place. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the results of the deletion discussion were clear; a redirect was rejected. This is a clear ignoring of consensus. John from Idegon (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per John from Idegon Chetsford (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there was no consensus to not redirect to the city council page all the other deleted counselor pages have been uncontroversially redirected to the same page which includes a bit about Boozé.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 11:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete also the g4 tag never should have been removed. There was a clear consensus to delete and no one suggested any such redirect. Praxidicae (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Goblin King with Scrotum Beard[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete. By Fastily per CSD#G8. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 18:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This name is never given to the fictional character he redirects to to the best of my knowledge. Hog Farm (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. (Note to self: clear browser history.) Narky Blert (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete to non-existent target. I also 👍 Like and agree with Narky Blert's note to his or herself. --Doug Mehus T·C 16:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Pakistani numbers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 16:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A vague, unlikely search term. Here apparently taken to refer to the number signs employed in the writing systems of most of Pakistan's languages, but it can equally plausibly be used by a reader searching for Telephone numbers in Pakistan. – Uanfala (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Above my pay grade and defer to Uanfala here In short, this is a neutral/indifferent. If Uanfala thinks delete is best, I'm fine with that. Let's forgo a relist. If a suitable target emerges, someone can easily re-create the redirect boldly. --Doug Mehus T·C 20:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, my vantage point here was simply English usage, and that should probably be considered above my pay grade too ;). "Pakistani numbers" is a vague generic phrase that can refer to probably anything (except maybe the current target: I'd be surprised if anyone found any sources at all that use the phrase in this sense). The telephone numbers look more likely, but I still prefer deletion: at the very least, we don't seem to have similar redirects for any other country. I strongly suspect the redirect was a result of the (not always explicit) one-upmanship between Indian and Pakistani editors, where the latter have felt obliged to create a "Pakistan" redirect for every "India" one out there (Hindu numerals being a well-established term). – Uanfala (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Diane (Penthouse Pet)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 19:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term Spartaz Humbug! 14:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Balochi numerals[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was redirect with caveat. I see a unanimous consensus to retarget Kashmiri numerals to Kashmiri language#Numerals and Balochi numerals to Balochi language#numerals. There's a weak consensus for retargeting Sindhi numerals to Sindhi language#Numerals, and a yet weaker one for pointing Hindko numerals at Shahmukhi alphabet. Since a retarget is likely preferable to simply keeping as no consensus, I think it's best to close this discussion with the proposed retargets, with no prejudice toward editors renominating Hindko and Sindhi for further consideration or boldly making suggested edits to their target articles. signed, Rosguill talk 16:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The noun "numeral" is ambiguous and may refer to either the words used in a particular language (one, two, three), or to the dedicated characters used to represented them in a writing system (1, 2, 3). Given that we've got here names of languages (rather than scripts), you'd expect these redirects to target articles explaining the use of number words in the respective languages. There is no such content anywhere, and neither does there appear to be anything about the written characters used for numbers in those languages either. – Uanfala (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I don't have a strong feeling about these redirects. It is plausible that somebody might want to know what kind of numerals Sindhis use, and search for "Sindhi numerals", just like one might search for Gujarati numerals. The redirect tells them that, even if by implication. It would of course be better if the page states which regions these numerals are used in. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really dislike the idea of having the existence of redirects make implied factual statements that are not explicitly stated, and sourced, in article text. How can we be sure that the competing written standards for Balochi and Hindko all use the Eastern Arabic numerals? Even worse for Sindhi and Kashmiri, which are both prominently written using scripts other than the Arabic. – Uanfala (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adding that articles like Gujarati numerals or Telugu numerals exist because "Gujarati", etc, are the names of both languages and of scripts, and the articles, though ostensibly about the written characters, can sensibly cover both aspects. This is not the case for the redirects here. A relevant example from a better developed corner of Wikipedia is how you have Cyrillic numerals for the mediaeval system used before the advent of Arabic numerals, and Russian numerals about the number words used in the Russian language. – Uanfala (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have little expertise in this area, and both Uanfala and Kautilya3 make equally compelling arguments. I hate to tag MJL in every "close call" case, but I feel like MJL's expertise in identifying unique and lesser known alternatives to deletion here might be useful, so MJL, care to put on your thinking cap here? The only thing I've come up with is a "no consensus" close, which would effectively "keep" the redirect where it is until someone comes up with a better idea. Doug Mehus T·C 18:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal OK, what about this Uanfala and Kautilya3, keep with a hatnote on each article to a separate article on each's numbering system? Alternatively, retarget each redirect to the article on each's numbering system with a hatnote to the numeral article for each? Doug Mehus T·C 18:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It will be helpful if you give a specific example of the proposal. But I don't see keeping or retargeting as viable at all, as there's no relevant content anywhere on wikipedia, for either of the meanings of "numeral" (barring a mention of Sindhi at Eastern Arabic numerals, but that's unsourced and apparently contradicted by easily observed samples of Sindhi writing online: see for example the Sindhi Wikipedia, which uses Western numbers). – Uanfala (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dmehus: Thank you for the ping! Sorry for the delay, but here's what I have:
    Retarget:
@Uanfala: Does that work for you? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great work, MJL! The Kashmiri section is excellent, the Balochi one is alright (though you've seen Korn's paper so you're aware this is only scratching the surface), so I'm happy for those two to be retargeted. I'm not sure about Sindhi: a section that in effect only states that the language has numerals isn't of much use, and I don't think we should try expanding it with content solely based on a 150-year old grammar (languages change). As for Hindko, it shouldn't be retargeted to Shahmukhi unless the article can be expanded with a sourced mention of the way numbers are represented specifically in Hindko, anything short of of that is doing WP:OR by the back door. – Uanfala (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice find, MJL, and I'm glad you didn't mind the pings. This subject is getting a bit over my level of knowledge, so I'm afraid I'll have to defer to your apparently good finds and Uanfala here. But, logically, looking at subject redirects and your proposed targets, they all look fine, so am fine with retarget-ing all of them, and would support any subsequent modifications proposed by Uanfala. Doug Mehus T·C 14:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am fine with the new redirects too. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Western Arabic–Indic numerals[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 19:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reliable sources using those terms: no hits on google scholar, only one hit on google books (and that is only some sort of software cheat sheet). There are about 30 or so webpages that use the term "Western Arabic-Indic" (mostly forum posts), and from what I'm seeing there it seems it's used variously for either the Eastern Arabic numerals or, presumably more aptly, for the familiar Arabic numerals. – Uanfala (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I have never encountered such terms and I can't think of them being search keys either. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Lagerwey[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's more than one Lagerwey in the world and this redirect inhibits Search. I'm not sure what the precedent is for redirecting a surname to the only article about a person with the surname, so here to discuss... Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Health centre (Malaysia)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

redirects to Prostitution in Malaysia, which doesn't seem appropriate. No discussion of health centres on that page Rathfelder (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nothing links to the page except discussions about the page. On a side note, I have added a few words and a ref in Prostitution in Malaysia to cover "health centres". --John B123 (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A rather surprising target for the redirect. I would have excepted an article about Malaysian health care, not the current target. Not a very active user (talk) 05:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Tanglefoot bags[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target page. Not a very active user (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it cannot be a helpful redirect if not mentioned on target page. There are no other occurrences of "Tanglefoot bag" on Wikipedia, so no viable alternate targets. Additionally, could you possibly bundle the below redirects to the same page into this nomination? I suspect the same arguments hold for those redirects. BenKuykendall (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This has come up previously, and was kept: [4], but since then very few people have actually searched for the term. I would assume that if someone wanted to know more about a tanglefoot bag, they would likely go to a D&D source rather than Wikipedia. SilkTork (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Spell Contingency[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target page, or anywhere else in Wikipedia. Not a very active user (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A useful spell (Level 6 Mage in the ver.2 rules, always a good idea to have one loaded ready to fire JIC), but by no means iconic enough to be mentioned anywhere here. Narky Blert (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ray Of Frost[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target page, or anywhere else in Wikipedia. Not a very active user (talk) 07:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Is this a version of Cone of Cold? Neither is an iconic spell which might help illustrate the D&D magic system. Narky Blert (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Magic discipline[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target page. Not a very active user (talk) 06:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of Dungeons and Dragons Spells[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect implies that the target page is a complete list of Dungeons & Dragons spells, which it isn't (and shouldn't be, per WP:GAMEGUIDE). Not a very active user (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Finger of death[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target page. Not a very active user (talk) 06:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Similar nominations merged. Steel1943 (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable D&D spell (unless it hits your lead character unexpectedly). Narky Blert (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Faerie fire[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Foxfire. No support for persisting with the current target, and a plausible variant spelling of Fairy fire, making it certainly a reasonable synonym for Foxfire. ~ mazca talk 16:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target page. Could be possibly retargeted to Foxfire, where Fairy fire currently redirects to. Not a very active user (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Chromatic Orb[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target page. Not a very active user (talk) 06:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not mentioned in the target? thus, a useless redirect. (I suppose that CO could be added to the list of iconic spells, but currently it isn't there. Useless spell IMO - save at +6 against the worthwhile special effects? Fuggedaboudit.) Narky Blert (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Chomatic Orb[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target page. The redirect also contains a misspelling, ("Chomatic" instead of "Chromatic") so even if "Chromatic Orb" was mentioned at the target page, this redirect should still be deleted. Not a very active user (talk) 06:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. signed, Rosguill talk 01:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_January_12&oldid=939309040"